Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Houston man whose case advanced gay rights dies (John Geddes Lawrence of Lawrence v. Texas)
Houston Chronicle ^ | Tuesday, December 27, 2011 | BRIAN ROGERS

Posted on 12/27/2011 10:24:11 AM PST by a fool in paradise

In the eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not criminalize private homosexual conduct, courts and legislatures across the country have struggled to define gay rights.

The debate changed for both sides after a watershed 2003 Supreme Court ruling in a case that originated in Houston. The court voted 6-3 to guarantee privacy rights for gay men and lesbians - reversing a 1986 decision that permitted states to outlaw homosexual acts, even in homes.

The Houston man at the center of the groundbreaking decision died last month of a heart condition. John Geddes Lawrence was 68.

When the Supreme Court considers whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry, Lawrence's lawyer says, Lawrence v. Texas will be a factor...

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 50mmisasackofshit; 50mmisgay; aids; darkwing104isapos; darkwing104isgay; deadfag; deadlib; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; lavendermafia; lawrencevtexas
The Houston Comical never did report on it when the man who made the prank phone call (a jilted gay lover who was having a spat with one of the sodomites in the apartment) died. He was murdered under unsolved circumstances while an assault charge he levied against one of the sodomites was to be brought to court (the assault case was dropped with the murder of the assault victim).

These were not nice men. They had a rap sheet for hard drugs and other offenses. It's akin to holding up Rodney King as an honorable man.

1 posted on 12/27/2011 10:24:23 AM PST by a fool in paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Moral Absolutes PING


2 posted on 12/27/2011 10:25:38 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Since Obama's only challengers in 2012 are in the GOP debates, include him the next 15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“He made America safe for sodomy” will look great on his tombstone.


3 posted on 12/27/2011 10:33:04 AM PST by Hunton Peck (See my FR homepage for a list of businesses that support WI Gov. Scott Walker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Has there ever been a society that publicly sanctioned homosexuality and survived for any length of time? I can't think of any.
4 posted on 12/27/2011 11:00:43 AM PST by youngidiot (Hear Hear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; little jeremiah; wagglebee; scripter; P-Marlowe

The average age of male death in the USA is 76.

John Laurence, one of the two men in the Texas sodomy case, just died at 68.

Tyrone Garner, the other man, died at age 39. http://www.chron.com/default/article/Defendant-in-sodomy-ruling-wasn-t-politically-1522838.php

This is additional evidence that the Texas sodomy law was the humane answer, and that Justice Kennedy was wrong.


5 posted on 12/27/2011 11:06:56 AM PST by xzins (Pray for Our Troops Remaining in Afghanistan, now that Iran Can Focus on Injuring Only Them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot

Well, there was the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, which lasted for close to 1,000 years, depending on how you count it. They sanctioned homosexual relationships between men, as well as between men and adolescent boys, but they were often between freemen and slaves or servants. Documentation of lesbian relationships isn’t as frequent, but the attitude appears to have been that these were also permitted, provided they were discreet.


6 posted on 12/27/2011 11:22:46 AM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

who can forget the Sodomy Six


7 posted on 12/27/2011 11:26:43 AM PST by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

““He made America safe for sodomy” will look great on his tombstone.”

He’ll be buried with his ass sticking out of the ground; it’ll double as a bike rack.


8 posted on 12/27/2011 11:29:16 AM PST by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck
“He made America safe for sodomy” will look great on his tombstone.

It is Houston after all. They have a lesbian mayor. Nothing surprises me about that city anymore.
9 posted on 12/27/2011 12:24:19 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Gay rights? I suppose everyone has a right to pursue being happy, but I don’t think it’s a right in and of itself.


10 posted on 12/27/2011 12:30:45 PM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

8 years since our republic began its descent into hell with speed and purpose.


11 posted on 12/27/2011 1:12:42 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Scalia was 100% correct about the overturning of Bowers vs Hardwick.

I think DC politicians want “anything goes” marriage in order to give them a green light to have as many extramarital affairs as they like.

The politicians do not care about homosexuals, politicians want to be able to expand their sexual conquests under the guise of “civil rights.”

(see bill clinton, newt gingirch, mayflower madem, former governor of NY state, the other former governor of NY state, and so on and so on)


12 posted on 12/27/2011 3:28:38 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; xzins; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

13 posted on 12/27/2011 4:15:45 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Indeed.


14 posted on 12/27/2011 4:26:20 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
I seem to recall that the Romans experimented with allowing homosexuality in their military, the idea being that they were far from home and needed to quench their sexual desires. But it proved to be a big mistake and they reversed the policy. I'm aware of Roman debauchery, but don't recall acceptance of homosexuality. Perhaps that was towards the end of the empire? I'm open to being educated on the matter, if you care to spend the time.

As far as lesbians go, most people find them far less offensive than gay men. Even the Bible makes a distinction. Most people aren't nearly as offended by lesbians as they are by gay men. That's been the case for thousands of years. I don't know if you're religious, but nevertheless some passages in the Bible make it clear than man on man sex is an abomination, and those texts have been around for a long time.

In present times when someone says that they find homosexuality repulsive there talking about gay men the majority of the time.

15 posted on 12/27/2011 4:38:50 PM PST by youngidiot (Hear Hear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot; wagglebee; little jeremiah; P-Marlowe; wmfights
Even the Bible makes a distinction

Nope. Both male and female same sex activity is condemned.

Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural , 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice ; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful ; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

16 posted on 12/27/2011 6:54:04 PM PST by xzins (Pray for Our Troops Remaining in Afghanistan, now that Iran Can Focus on Injuring Only Them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

This is talking specifically about men. Leviticus mention both men and women instead of using the word “ man” to mean everyone.

In Romans 1 I think Paul was expressing an “ick” factor concerning the women rather than making a commandment, if you will.

I think the Bible mentions homosexuality about 10 times. In each case it's talking about men having sex with men, save the example you gave, which I don't see as making gay men and lesbians equally repulsive.

I think your example (Romans) mentions lesbians in passing; more as an opinion that as a commandment. “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” It's an “ick” thing that Paul is expressing, though since it's in the bible, you might probably conclude that it's a divinely inspired ick. But reading it as it's written, it's obvious Paul thinks it's wrong, but not so obvious that this is a fact.

And I think that the first chapter of Romans is the only place where lesbians are mentioned in any way. All the rest are talking about gay men. I could be wrong about that. But man was made in the image of God, and women made in the image of man. That could be why male homosexuality is seen as such an abomination.

17 posted on 12/27/2011 8:29:34 PM PST by youngidiot (Hear Hear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot; P-Marlowe; wagglebee

The Romans passage clearly lumps “unnatural” relations of women with all those other things that “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Assuming one thinks “ick” is worthy of death, I’d be careful picking my teeth in public (another “ick”) in fear of death by the hand of God.


18 posted on 12/28/2011 1:55:51 AM PST by xzins (Pray for Our Troops Remaining in Afghanistan, now that Iran Can Focus on Injuring Only Them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot

The biblical male case almost always includes the female case. If it’s wrong for a guy it’s wrong for a girl.

Since sex is ONLY permissable within the bounds of marriage, and since marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then any sex other than that between a man and a woman (who are married to each other) is sinful.

Lesbianism is just as bad as homosexuality.


19 posted on 12/28/2011 5:49:16 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot

Actually, homosexuality in ancient Rome wasn’t an “experiment.” Nor was it restricted to the army out in foreign lands. It was an accepted choice of Romans, from the well-to-do to the poorest. Homosexual marriages were considered normal, if law records are to be trusted. Such relationships were never forbidden; there are no laws on record which outlaw homosexuality in either the Roman armies, or in their civil society. It was just another taste, apparently. Our modern sense of distaste is just that - modern.

It may have been the the Romans were actually adopting the patterns of the Greeks, who were considered to have set the foundations of a civil society. Plato himself thought, and wrote, that the more more advanced a society, the more it would accept homosexual unions. Only despotic societies would outlaw homosexual relationships, Plato wrote, because the despot would feel so threatened by the intense male-male friendships that these unions created.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

You can find a great deal of information about ancient attitudes towards homosexuality on the web. Obviously, a lot of it has been produced by gay historians, so they have a point to make. But you can judge the historical evidence they’ve uncovered for yourself. It’s generally recognized that its was the attitude of the Christian Church towards homosexuality which overwhelmed the far more accepting approach of the ancient pagans.

All that the historical evidence means is that it gets rid of one reason to oppose societal acceptance of homosexuality. At least two major societies - one of them lasting for centuries - not only permitted, but approved of, homosexuality. That acceptance of same-sex relationships is part of the reason the Church condemned Roman civilization.

I agree with you about a different attitude towards lesbianism. In many societies, such relationships between women were actually encouraged. I always though it was a practical decision. If you’re on a campaign and out of town for a few years, you won’t have to give your name to a bastard if your wife is involved within another woman.


20 posted on 12/28/2011 6:38:10 PM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Even back in the 90’s, the big H had a “thriving” homo community. I was a taxi driver there for a short while, and I didn’t like to pick up fares in the homo district, Montrose. They were thieves and would try to “jump the check” by getting out under the pretext of picking up a friend and then never returning. Only happened to me once, and the few other times, I demanded a deposit before they got out of the cab. I seldom met any fag there who was honorable.


21 posted on 12/29/2011 4:27:24 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson